Talk:Erich von Manstein/Archive 2

Vandalism
Could someone lock and revert this article to an earlier state. The vandalism by anonymous users in this article is getting out of hand.--LordofHavoc 18:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

To LordofHavoc from Germany. Isn't pathetic! Some German put to Wikipedia fraudulent account about Manstein's military genius, vandalizing historical truth. Then a honest editor tried to provide a honest picture and Germans are crying "Wolf."

Talking about 'point of view' and vanadalism. Thank you for helping. Regards LordofHavoc

This is why it is almost impossible for me to take Wikipedia seriously.

To LordofHavoc from Germany. You were too eager to vandalize an article, removing any information about recent research. Calm down! You lost the war. It is English language Wikipedia. Stop your German lies. "Beware of the German memoir literature! Books by the likes of Guderian and Manstein are still selling briskly in English and German, but most of what they contain is not be trusted, and the same is true for secondary works that depends upon them." Geoffrey P. Megargee, "War of Annihilation. Combat and Genocide on the Eastern Front, 1941", p. 166. 2006, Rowman & Littelefield, ISBN 0-7425-4481 User: Sven Haraldsson. 1.14.07

"Publisher Weekly." Editorial review of Geoffrey P. Megargee," Inside Hitler's High Command," Larence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2000: "Challenging previous accounts, Geoffrey Megargee shatters the myth that German generals would have prevailed in World War II if only Hitler had not meddled in their affairs. Indeed, Megargee argues, the German high command was much more flawed than many have suspected or acknowledged. Inside Hitler's High Command reveals that while Hitler was the central figure in many military decisions, his generals were equal partners in Germany's catastrophic defeat. Megargee exposes the structure, processes, and personalities that governed the Third Reich's military decision making and shows how Germany's presumed battlefield superiority was undermined by poor strategic and operational planning at the highest levels. His study tracks the evolution of German military leadership under the Nazis from 1933 to 1945 and expands our understanding of the balance of power within the high command, the role of personalities in its organizational development, and the influence of German military intellectuals on its structure and function. He also shows how the organization of the high command was plagued by ambition, stubbornness, political intrigue, and overworked staff officers. And his "a week in the life" chapter puts the high command under a magnifying glass to reveal its inner workings during the fierce fighting on the Russian Front in December 1941.

Megargee also offers new insights into the high command crises of 1938 and shows how German general staff made fatal mistakes in their planning for Operation Barbarossa in 1941. Their arrogant dismissal of the Soviet military's ability to defend its homeland and virtual disregard for the extensive intelligence and sound logistics that undergird successful large-scale military campaigns ultimately came back to haunt them.

In the final assessment, observes Megargee, the generals' strategic ideas were no better than Hitler's and often worse. Heinz Guderian, Franz Halder, and the rest were as guilty of self-deception as their Führer, believing that innate German superiority and strength of will were enough to overcome nearly any obstacle. Inside Hitler's High Command exposes these surprising flaws and illuminates the process of strategy and decision making in the Third Reich."

Sven, no offense, but what is it with your immediate calling upon someone’s race? I find that rather offensive and childish. Make a valid argument (which by the way, you seem to have) you don’t need to draw race into it(which has nothing to do with it). ACLU-1


 * You know, the funny thing about it is, I am not even German. But to guys like him, it really doesn't matter. It is really interesting, I live in Germany, so I have to be an evil revisionist nazi. I am just judged by nation and race.
 * By the way, I never attacked your arguements, but the place where you put them(Putting ones argument persistently at the top of a page, is a kind of vandalim). There is never one truth, not yours, not mine.
 * So, if you can't take Wikipedia seriously, just leave, but if you want to continue to contribute, get a real account..-LordofHavoc 11:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason I said that I can't take Wiki seriously is because of people like Sven... Racist chaps with ill humor! ACLU-1
 * Sorry!... Point taken. There was no user tag, so I thought it was the same author.--LordofHavoc 09:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Move some of the details of various battles to their respective main articles?
I've started doing some work on this article, rewriting small parts for better flow, added lots of date and unit links, tried to clarify certain parts and removed/rewritten some unsourced very NPOV material from the Sevastpol section, centerd the big images on the right to avoid them breaking the readers attention completely and rewritten the introduction to make it less, well, sucky. But I feel this article needs to be trimmed somewhat, namely the looong parts about the Crimea and Sevastpol battles, and the superflous information be added to the main articles, which seems much less detailed. This will hopfully make the article less of a mouthfull and allow it to concentrate on Manstein and not every detail of the various battles he commanded.

What I propose is to combine the Crimea and Capture of Sevastpol into one, much shorter section. Then move most of the stuff in there to the main Battle of Sevastpol article. Abel29a 05:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me Tomgreeny 20:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's done. I still feel its to long tough, might be possible to trim more. I also removed the NPOV tag from this section as I really can't find anything POV in it anymore, but that might just be me :) All of the material from the sections har been copied to Battle of Sevastopol, giving that article a nice content boost. Abel29a 09:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why this passion to `trim`, to use your euphamism. Manstein was intensively involved in these battles, and any self-respecting biography of the man should detail his role in them. Disinterested readers could simply gloss over sections too long to gain their interest, as is done with aal rerading material.


 * That is what sub-articles are for. This is not a biography of von Manstein, it is a encyclopedic entry on him. Details of battles and campaigns should be left to sub articles, to avoid cluttering the main article with every possible piece of info. Abel29a 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Time to remove the NPOV and Copy editing needed tags?
Done a lot of work on this article over the last few days, and I don't relly see a need for the two tags at the top of the page anymore. If somebody else could go over the article and verify my view (or find more errors and correct them) we could remove those tags, as they are an eye-sore :) Abel29a 18:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Seeing the thundering lack of responses I've removed the tags. The grammar of the article has been improved, and I can't find any NPOV breaches atm. There are contradicting claims, but where that is so the various sides views are presented in the text. Abel29a 04:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

To 88.152.170.23
Before we get into some revert war here - what~facts exactly do you feel I've removed form the article? I'm assuming it's the Crimea section you're reverting is that it? There is nothing removed there as far as critisism of von Manstein (With the exception of a unsourced very POV sentence about von Manstein ordering all defenders of Sevastopol killed, despite einsatzgruppe protests - cleary utter baloney) - all that I have done is trim the excessive details of battles and added them to the main battle of sevastopol article. So if you could simply point to what you feel is unjustly removed it could be put back in, instead of removing all the work I've done to trim the article to a more managable level. Abel29a 03:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim in question is not "Baloney". These murders did indeed take place. I did not however, contrary to your claim, submit that there was an Einsatzgruppe outcry against the mass shooting in question, merely that Ohlendorf, its commander, was generally opposed to the indidiscriminate slaghter of non-Jews. The man, vile though he was, believed such killings to be counter-productive and made himself unpopular with Himmler and others by forcefully presenting his arguments. The fact remains that he followed Manstein's orders on the matter. I was also vexed that Manstein's bogus claims regarding Soviet losses in Kerch were taken as the final instance, while the now well known figures published by Krivosheev were suppressed. No 170,000 POWs were taken in Kerch. Even Krivosheev's figure of 162,282 killed and missing strikes me as excessive. Other Russian sources cite the figure of 150,000. As for your insistence that the sections are too long, I for my part feel that other sections should be fuller as well as more truthful. Soz


 * Well, if you find some trustworthy cites for Manstein ordering POWs killed, I'd be amazed, as I've never heard this mentioned anywhere. It was not brought up at the trial either, afaik. As for the claims of POWs at Kerch and Sevastopol were inflated, I'll be willing to belive. As it stands now, none of the various losses/numbers of POWs are sourced, would be good if somebody could provide it. The reason the whole Crimea section is to long is because this article should concentrate on Manstein, not the details of all the campaigns he fought. As stated before, all the material removed from here has been put in the Battle of Sevastopol article where it rightfully belong. The numbers of POWs, losses and debates about that should be directed to that article, unless you have cites verifying that Manstein personally inflated numbers for whatever reason.


 * How bout this - I reinstate the shorter, trimmed down version, adding notes to all the various numbers for causalties, describing that there is a disrepency between German and Soviet claims. My main intereset is to get the sheer size of the Crimea chapter down, not supress critisism of Manstein (As long as it's presented in a npov, cited form). Then you oculd go thorugh it and add whatever you feel is missing. That way most of the details of the campaign, the movement of troops, orders of battle, what happend where and when can be found in the battle of sevastopol article, while a broad outline is retained in this article. Would that work? Abel29a 20:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay seeing as you havent replied - I've reinstated the shorter version, but taken care not to remove any critiscisms of Manstein. Please compare the two versions before you decide that I've removed something vital, and if you find anything missing it's better to reinstate it manually rather than revert - as the section is to long and detailed as it is now. Abel29a 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For the moment I will try doing things your way. Rather then reverting your "abridgement" of the sections in question, I began correcting what appeared to me as grave ommisions and inaccuracies, as well as what struck me as stylistic lapses. I do not believe that the sections in questions were too long, since they dealt primarily, not with the fighting as such, but with Manstein's role in it, and his misrepresentation of what transpired. Wikipedia seeks to be an encyclopedia, not a lexicon of sorts. there is no harm in thoroughly covering a subject. Soz


 * Goody - as I've said before, leaving details of troop compositions and movements to the main battle article will allow us to not see the lenght of this article flying through the roof. Couple of questions about your additions tough:
 * 1. After the capture of Crimea in nov 41 you've inserted the sentence "Manstein put Soviet losses at 170,000 including some 100,000 POWs. Actual Soviet losses of all kind totaled merely 63,800" - which is exactly the same claims made in the Trappenjagd section after the Soviet forces are forced to withdraw from Kerch. This strikes me as odd, that the numbers match excatly - do you have any cites for them?
 * 2. Some of your language in the rewrites seems odd, and not always neutral. For instance: "winter had set in the Luftwaffe was fogged out." - fogged out is not good english as far as I can see. My original sentence read better in my mind, but I'm not a native English speaker so I might be wrong.
 * "the Soviets launched a spoiling attack hurling them back." - hurling them back is a overstatement, as according to the sources I've read, the Germans were halted in their attacks, they never lost much ground around Sevastopol even when most of Mansteins forces had to be sent east to deal with the Soviet landings at Kerch.
 * "This situation forced von Manstein to cancel a resumption of the attack on Sevastopol. In that sense it may have been a blessing in disguise for the Germans, for conditions were impossible. " strikes me as a very POV sentence as the Germans had already cancelled all attacks on Sevastopol even prior to the redeployment of forces.
 * 3. Overall neutrallness - I get that you don't like Manstein, but please try to use as neutral terms and languages as possible. I'd hate for that ugly NPOV tag to be put back on the page.


 * Apart from that I'm really happy that we could trim down the lenght of the section to about half it's original size without loosing anything about von Manstein. Abel29a 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * EDIT: About the numbers for losses I misread the claims - 170,000 losses in the first part, 170,000 prisoners in the second. Still, would be nice to have a source for Mansteins claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abel29a (talk • contribs) 00:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

I skip in here, as it seems you're discussing something that I want to contribute to. It's about the "crimea"-section. At the end of the section it says:

"von Manstein claimed 170,000 prisoners taken(src.:Mansteins memoirs, ed. 1982, p. 238). He maintained that air and artillery bombardment kept Soviet evacuation attempts at bay. In truth it took some time to fully regroup the artillery, while the Luftwaffe proved highly ineffective in nocturnal interdiction operations due to a severe shortage of navigational aids on the Soviet front; as was demonstrated to far graver effect during the Battle of Stalingrad against the cross-Volga ferry service. Russian sources dispute von Manstein's figures. Krivosheev reports a total of 176,566 losses, including 14,284 medicals. B.N. Nezerov puts losses at around 150,000. The last claim is significantly lower than von Mansteins claim."

What does any of this have to do with Manstein? First of all, what the number of prisoners taken in some campaign seems rather irrelevant, unless it's actually a number worth mentioning (like a million or zero, numbers of which there is no doubt) - something out of the ordinary. By memory, Manstein puts the figure at 170K, a number there's been raised doubts about. Then why not completely remove the mentioning of any prisoners or casualties, as it has little to do with a description of Manstein? Then the segment goes on to describe the actions of the artillery and Luftwaffe. What does that have to do with anything? In Mansteins opinion, they performed well. Other data says otherwise. But why mention it at all? It seems redundant in the first place, and irrelevant due to doubts wether Mansteins portrayal of the actions of LW and art. stands up to the actual picture. Then it continues with telling a story about the luftwaffes poor navigational capability during Stalingrad - clearly Off Topic. Then the reader gets some rather irrelevant source-material thrown in his face, on wether Mansteins numbers are correct, and to what degree. If you want to mention the prisoners/casualties, then why not say something like "considerable amount of prisoners/casualties" rather than go into a discussion on which author says 170K or 150K and how these numbers should be grouped, since it clearly dosen't add anything to neither the truth nor the clarity of the subject. And is the odd reader supposed to be able to distinguish who Krivosheev or Nezerov is? They're mentioned as if they are persons everyone is familiar with. At best the data should be in the articles on the respective battles, not here.--Nwinther 17:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, but my honoruable opposition maintains this is important critisiscm of von Manstein... I want all the number debates and such moved to the Sevastopol battle article, but if I try I fear it'll be reverted back here real quick :) Abel29a 23:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Who's Soz and how do we reach him? I'd like to get his input on this, as he seems to be in strong oppossition to anything not critisizing Manstein and quickly reverts any edits in that direction (whether NPOV or POV).--Nwinther 11:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the aforementioned bit, plus a line more about casualties (a bit earlier in the section). Now, I'm thinking about removing the casualty-discussion in the Sevastopol-section too, as it seems equally irrelevant. However, I'll just see how long my revisions "survives" before I do any other editing. Perhaps there should be a general statement somewhere, that Mansteins experiences with casusalties differs quite a bit from other sources - especially russian ones? I believe this is a general trait among commanders though and I don't see that Manstein is particularly better or worse than the odd german/russian/british or american commander in regards to this sort of figures.--Nwinther 10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. Yeah, a general statement might work, but we really shouldnt have to go into this at all, as its more of a nitpicking issue. If you see a way to shorten the Crimea section even more, go for it, I still feels it occupies to much space in what is a Manstein article... Abel29a 14:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear NWinther. Your claim that Manstein merely made honest mistakes when he exaggerated Soviet casualties is, to my way of thinking, false. You support this claim with another claim, namely that Manstein was recalling theses figures from memory when he wrote his memoirs and that memory slips were therefore inevitable. That latter claim is also false. In his memoirs Manstein mentions that he based his writing on contemporary records, both his own and others'. He even telles that these records are "dear to him", being that they recount his and his troops' fighting. It is true that commanders and indeed entire commands would exaggerate enemy losses, however most eventually came to recognise their error, moreover exaggerations of prisoners taken, are a precious rearity. Manstein's exaggerations of enemy losses were, like his deflations of German casualties, not honest mistakes but willful misrepresentations. I referred to the Luftwaffe's difficulties as well as the slow regrouping of the artillery as a way of illustrating that the falsehood of the claims had to have been obvious to him, for he was not blind to these occurences. The enormous discrepencies are therefore highly indicative of his character or lack thereof. An accurate statement of the Soviet forces opposing him in his various battles is necessary to correctly measure his achievements. They are urgently relavent in an article about him. You are however right about one thing. I do not "like" Manstein. Aside from gaining an undeserved reputation as an insuperable warlord thanks to misrepresenting his record, he was also a criminal against humanity. What exactly am I supposed to like. I am actually dismayed that you hold him in such high regard, but that is your affair. In any even leave the figures in peace, until you find solid refutation of them, which you won't. If anything I suspect that Krivosheev's figures are too high. They have consistently proven to be in certain instances (notably in Operation Mars). Soz


 * The thing is, a discussion of numbers like this is meaningless - it tells us nothing. The Germans have one claim, the Russians another - who to trust? It doesnt matter, really. Besides, writing that "Manstein claimed so and so numbers, but in truth the actual numbers were..." is biased. If you must have these numbers included, at least write Manstein claims this, this source claim that.... And why do your numbers keep changing all the time Soz? Last time it was 150000 or 140000 causalties, now its suddenly 140000 were evacuated.... Is seems like you're pulling numbers out of thin air, and the only source for them is a last name of someone you claim is a researcher, yet I cant find any info about. (Granted, my knowledge of russian historians is woefully lacking) But anywho, its just cluttering up the article. And for the record - liking or not liking Manstein is completely beside the point, trying to get a neutral presentation is the essence - the article atm is fairly neutral, lets try and keep it that way... Abel29a 23:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Soz, you seem to be describing apples in an article on oranges. The casualty-figures aren't relevant in order to describe Manstein. At best they belong in the articles about the actual battles, where a deeper analysis would be in it's place. However, they do not belong in this article. I have no beef with the numbers as such, so I needn't refute them. I only have a beef with them being in this particular article. Another thing: If Manstein is relying on external documents, it's not Manstein who "claims" anything, It's Mansteins sources that claim it! And why would this general who's worried about his own reputation so much (as you claim), give tremendous credit to anyone but himself (i.e. the Artillery and Luftwaffe) if these units in fact performed badly (and weren't directly under his control or wasn't "him")? If Manstein "knew" that they'd performed badly, he would also have known that they were partly to blame for why he didn't fare any better. A Manstein being so selfish as you seem to claim would surely blame everyone else - like Hitler did it - for his own faliures. OR the man may actually believe what he's writing/saying because that's what the material available to him tells him. THEREFORE... I once again plead that we remove the numbers in general and the "he says/she says"-bits in particular and relocate them to their proper place, the battle-articles. I'll wait with reverting anything and discuss it with you.--Nwinther 08:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Any discussion of battles, weather contained in a biography of participants or not, must include casualty figures in so far as they are available. To my recollection you had no problem with them when they accorded with Manstein's account. Manstein did not point out the difficulies experienced by the artillery because he prefered to falsely claim total success rather than excuse a partial failure. The former is a far greater boon to one's reputation. There was I should point out no "blame" or "fault" to impute. The heavy artillery pieces could not grow wings and the 8th air corps could not improvise navigational aides. If Manstein was to admit that his attack was not quite as successful as it was, and there is no disputing that it was nonetheless a resounding success and not an out and out `failure`, there would have been no one to scapegoat. Moreover it would have uselessly provoked a controversy. Manstein's selfishness is manifested in ,among other things, his failure to fully acknoledge Richthoffen's 8th air corps decisive contribution in both Kerch and Sevastopol. This incidently did provoke some controversy. As for manstein's responsibility for the records he utilised in his book. These were his HQ's records prepared by him and under his supervision. Therefore he is very much responsible for them. The exaggerations both than and later were his own doing reflecting above all else his own vanity. demonstrating them is hence important in an article about him. Soz ~
 * Woult it work better if we devoted one paragraph of the Sevastopol/Crimea section to this vanity trait of Manstein? Instead of having two or three scattered debates about numbers, concentrate it in one section, maybe the last "aftermath" section? That way the narrative, so to speak, of the main campaign would not be cluttered by the presentation of various numbers. Dunno, just an idea. Abel29a 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Soz: "Any discussion of battles, weather contained in a biography of participants or not, must include casualty figures in so far as they are available." Perhaps. But the problem is, they are NOT available. Instead, there's a discussion on what figure is correct. And if there's any doubt - mounting to a discussion like this - then it'd be better to entirely exclude them from the profile and locate the discussion in the relevant article, the one about the actual battle.
 * Soz: "To my recollection you had no problem with them when they accorded with Manstein's account." No, because there was no discussion or doubt. The only numbers stated were Mansteins. Then there's been raised doubts, and the discussion commences cluttering up the article.
 * Soz: "The heavy artillery pieces could not grow wings and the 8th air corps could not improvise navigational aides." No, but none of this was directly because of Manstein. Pointing to incompetence elsewhere in the system (out of Mansteins reach) he could accomplish "total victory in spite of others incompetence". By pointing out, that there was few aids and plenty difficulties with the art. and LW - yet they performed admirably (wether they did or not), he get's the best of both worlds. Not only was he completely successful, but he was so in spite of plenty of difficulties. Why would he understate his own numbers (which is a problem) if he didn't also state other obstacles, like a lack of navigational facilities in the Crimea? Regarding the source-material, I don't want to get further into a discussion on that, because i simply don't have the material available to me, but if Manstein doctered the numbers, so could anyone else who has an interest. And even though archive-material can say a lot, it rarely tells the entire truth (just like eye-witness reports only tell so much). Nomatter what, I stand by the viewpoint that the numbers in this article only diminishes the quality of the article rather than improve it. It's a discussion that dosen't belong in a biography/profile as it is of technical importance rather than descriptive and should thus be moved to the battle-articles.--Nwinther 09:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

NWinther on Soviet casualty figures: "If there is any doubt than it's better to exclude them". There is no real doubt. Your choice to go on disputing them does not make them disputable. There is no "discussion" of there validity. There is only a comparison of Manstein's claims with the actual figures, proving his mendacious self aggrandisement. As for your suggestion that Manstein could have had "the best of both worlds" by claiming total victory in spite of incompetence outside his reach. It is completely false. Manstein could not maintain that the artillery arrived too late and the Luftwaffe could not carry out effective nocturnal interdiction, and still maintain that the Soviets failed to evacuate their troops across the straits of Kerch. Last but not least, just saying that I am still opposed no matter what, makes for a very shaky argument. As humans we are all obligated to display intellectual integrity.

To Abel: If the article did indeed concern the battles in question rather than the commander involved, namely Manstein, than a separate paragraph would be appropriate. However he article is biographical and evidence of the subject's unfounded boasting regarding the battles' outcome is therefore of central importance to discussing his role and actions in said battles. I therefore believe that your suggestion is mistaken. I have yet to fathom why the figures are a source of such discomfort to you. Surely it is not that they "break he article's flow". They just don't take up enough space, compared with their importance, to commit such a dastardly deed and in any event are perfecly in their place. I propose you spare i some thought Soz
 * I did and you're right, it was a bad idea. The thing that still bothers me is the language of the section - "actual losses" and "in truth" - would it not be more neutral to write "Manstein claimed so and so, while Soviet sources claim this."? Oh, have you had a chance to look at the Rommel article yet? I think i reinstated the info you said I deleted, but I'm not sure. However, I could not find any sources describing the British Crusader plan as you did - see the talk on Rommel please. Abel29a 12:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If there's no doubt about the numbers, why put in Mansteins figures at all? I don't see the relevance of Mansteins mistakenness/selfishness et. al. in the article. This would warrant an entire debate on every article on soldiers who's commented on casualties - all over wikipedia. The bit about disputing I simply don't understand. You claim that your figures are indisputable? (very scientific!). I only see referenced some (to me anyway) obscure sources that seem VERY casual with the numbers "about 150.000". What kind of "unquestionable" number is that? If one have got access to the absolute truth, then one should be able to give the exact figures. I'd say the truth is still very much hidden. As I said, archive material can only say so much. In regards to the "two worlds", of course he could claim that if he wanted to. "The luftwaffe performed admirably, despite the lack of navigational resources and despite the heavy artillery arriving late, the enemy was unable to evacuate their troops." done and done. Last but not least, when I say that I'm still opposes it's becaust I didn't (and still don't) find your arguments convincing. If your argument's don't move me - then I shouldn't change my mind. I'm not opposed nomatter what - your arguments just didn't "do it".--Nwinther 10:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the wordings slighlty, to avoid the absoulte phrases in thruth and similar, replacing it with Soviet sources claims. I also readded the B.N. Nezerov numbers as the losses debate at Kerch seems incomplete without them. (Altough I still maintian that the numbers should be dropped completely) Abel29a 14:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To Abel129a: you appear, I am afraid, to have misunderstood the data. Nezorov claims that some 150,000 Soviet troops were not evacuated. That does mean that total Soviet losses were 150,000 since many of those evacuated were wounded or ill. Therefore Krivosheev remains the sole source to overall Soviet losses in "Busturd Hunt". Moreover you found it necessary to delete the information that the flotilla available to Manstein in Sevastopol was unsuited for amphibious operations, and there are similiar lapses, I am accordingly forced to revert. Soz
 * Ah sorry about that. I see you reverted the edit I made, I just have to ask - does wordings like "in thruth" belong in an encyclopedic article were both sides views should be presented? I feel a more neutral language is required - I'm gonna leave the phrases alone for now, tough I saw some grammatical/language issues I'm gona try and fix. Abel29a 09:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Soz, but you're losing this debate... as far as I can see, all others participating in this discussion disagree with you to a varying extent, yet you keep reverting to "your" version of the page.

Although I'm not an expert on this particular (Crimea) battle, I do know that all sides in this war (Germans and Soviets, but also British, American, French, Japanese, etc etc) tended to exaggerate enemy losses while keeping their own loss estimates low; arguably, this has happened in almost every single war that has been fought. In fact, Soviet historians were more notorious for this than other nationalities - partly because they all knew what Stalin did to underperforming generals (this was just a few years after the traumatic cleansing of the officer corps), and partly because they simply didn't have the data - the Red Army wasn't exactly known for its administrative perfection. Yet you're picking out one man that claims a certain loss number to be a liar, comparing it to other sources that are equally disputable (because ALL sources of this kind of data are disputable). Jur.

Why such an obvious anti-Manstein bias and partiality?
Much of the article is propaganda rather than an encyclopedia entry. Sure we dont have all facts 100% clear, but the article isnt about facts, its more argumentation. Using childish tricks like "over X(as even number as possible here) number claimed by Manstein, but Y(more precise figure written here) is known/actual number" is just pathetic to place in any kind of encyclopedia... 81.224.170.124 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I heartily agree with the above. However, every time someone tries to rectify the bias, this guy (read the discussions on Crimea, you'll know who) reverts to his own version. So me and a couple of others have seemingly given up waiting for the discussion to flare up again and perhaps get some authoraty to step in. --Nwinther 12:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming revision
This is a Heads-Up to everyone interested in Manstein. Re-reading the article, it becomes wierder and wierder to see how minor campaigns/chapters are worked over in detail, while the major campaigns/chapters are brushed over. I don't see any reason to go into combat detail in this article (reserve those for the actual battle-/campaign articles) as this is an article on a person in general, not detailed/scruitinized description of the persons whereabouts and actions. Therefor I will be deleting/moving/rewriting some of this article in the near future. Anyone oppossed to this or wanting to participate should note it here or PM me. Regards.--Nwinther (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent work on cleaning up the Crimea section, I sort of gave up on it a long time ago :) Oh well, let's see how long it'll last... Maybe now with the section running at a shorter length it would be better to combine the two sections under one heading? Crimea and the Battle of Sevastopol perhaps?Abel29a (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've removed any adjectives with a "laden" values such as "fierce" "bitter" etc - keeping it as objective as possible. I've also followed your recommendation and joined the two sections. It does seem more harmonic that way. BTW - shouldn't the Barbarosse-part be expanded? After all, he commanded a corps for several months - it should read more than a line-and-a-half.--Nwinther (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be nice having the Barbarossa section expanded. I'll have a look and see if I can dig up some sources, but nothing immediately springs to mind. Abel29a (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, his own book spring to my mind. I know it's controversial but surely one can rely on some of the information. As far as I can remember it's a listing of advances and stuff. No controversial stuff. I don't have Lost Victories myself but I'll go and buy it. I'll also see what I can dig up on axishistory.com--Nwinther (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The four officer types
I see this section is added. Strangely, I've read a book on Rommel, where he uses this description. I believe it was in "The Rommel Papers" - which is his own diary. I'll look into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwinther (talk • contribs) 10:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have also seen it - in one place - attributed to Carl von Clausewitz .... so maybe it was in common use in German military circles ... maybe it is just one of those anonymous theories. I was first told it by a Royal Marines Brigadier - definitely a clever-lazy type - who attributed it I think to von M.  It will be interesting to see if an original author can be tracked down.  Springnuts (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Could very well be a common saying in German forces - it's attributed to Rommel in his article. Abel29a (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV again?
Why has this tag been added back in? Unless somebody can point to something spesific and add appropiate tags in the text itself I'll delete it in a couple of days. Abel29a (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I copy that Abel. Is there any way to find out who put it there? At least they should drop a line in the talk-section and point out the problem.--Nwinther (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up the Talk Section
I'm glancing through the Talk-section of this article and several of the discussions seems to be about four years old - some of them are resolved or obsolete issues. And it really clutters up the whole screen. Can we either delete these or archive them? I don't know how to do the latter.--Nwinther (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

general overview of the v.manstein article
Would somebody help please. I am a published military historian (q.v. Trupppenfuhrung). It is clear that the original framers of this article on v.manstein had the best intentions but the final text would benefit from considerable editorial effort and revisions. eg: i am the only, repeat only, person who has worked through all the 22 cases of documents of the v.manstein trial. The archivists told me that sometimes they are approached by 'persons' who would like to have photocopies of 'a few pages' but they said that they are a serious department and that I was the 'only' researcher who had worked through the their whole Manstein archive. The Manstein WikiArticle clearly represents considerable effort but its neutrality is in serious question, perhaps because the framers do not have a background in graduate-level military history work (which is what this topic merits). While I am willing to make necessary revisions, I am not willing to do this unless all contributors are willing to support this effort. In addition, I would say that the discussion page is not a 'Mil-History-101 Blog' it is for serious dialogue. If we wish to be taken seriously, we should be professional ( is that too much to ask?) We must not, RPT NOT be labelled as amateurs! Would an established WikiEditor please (PLEASE) contact me with advice about where to go from here? thanks. Bruce. I will make my email address available as necessary (why not?) bruce (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Bruce. I would, for one, like to back you up in your work. However, I don't think anyone can guarantee support from all contributors and I'm not sure that anyone should. Your contributions are welcome, I'm sure. But they, too, will be subject to change if they lack in areas. As much as myself and others would like to recognize your credentials and superb skills on the field of Manstein, I also believe that we shouldn's "show and tell", but rather "do". If you want the backing of contributors and editors, try showing us a sample of your skills and knowledge. You seem to specialize on the Trial, so why not start there? Good to have you on board.--Nwinther (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say that such effort on World War 2 articles is nearly impossible (like on other issues too). Wikipedia suffers from it's greatest benefits: freedom of edit. Even if you bring up an argument, prove it in ALL possible means, there will be someone coming and disagreeing/editing only because they believe you are wrong. It becomes harder on Eastern front because the "lot of myths" that exist there on both sides, and myths are hard to fight off.-PHWeberbauer.

Addresses
Hello

I'm livingin Poland and plannig to look around some historical places about him. Anybody who knows the addresses of

HQ in Lodz, Poland or House(Birthplace) in Berlin ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeunesis (talk • contribs) 08:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Manstein's name
Can someone with good knowledge of German or the prussian dialect confirm how Manstein's name was orignally pronounced, and publish it as a sound file at the top of the article on Manstein.

A few years ago, I watched a German TV documentary on the Russian campaign, with a lot of original footage included in it,and all the German commentators and people interviewed pronouned his name, not as M-A-nst-EI-n, but somewhat akin to "M-OO-nst-EE-n. Thanks.

Björn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.235.120 (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The standard German language pronunciation is taken from the Hanover form of german which was officially adopted as 'Standard German' (or High German) in the late 19th century. In the Hanover form, the name Manstein is probably 'Mann Stine' (one word)  the second syllable to rhyme with 'eye' (as in eyesight).  I do not have the official phonetic diacritics available on my keyboard but the above is probably about right.Miletus (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

New Manstein Biography
The Biography of v.Manstein by Maj-Gen Melvin was published in May this year. During the 4 years preparation, he was given (for the first time) access to the family and their archives, as well as government archives. The book was long overdue and is, I believe, the definitive work. I think that contributors will find that all of the above discussion questions are dealt with.Miletus (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry
His father was of polish ancestry. When the father was of polish ancestry, so was the son. Once he was of Jewish ancestry, now it's polish. Erich von Manstein/Lewinski was a Prussian German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.17.58 (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Some troubling claims
There is much about this page that is rather disturbing to say the least. Much of it reads like something out of Manstein’s memoirs where he was right about everything, and never made a single mistake. Even more disturbing is the way that this page goes out of its way to present Manstein as a rather heroic, admirable figure. What is so heroic about fighting for a genocidal regime? Back in the 1980s, a leading German historian named Andreas Hillgruber caused something of a stir with his claim that with regards to the Eastern Front in 1944-45 historians should take the side of the German Army. The major point of criticism of Hillgruber was that his “heroic” German Army was fighting to continue the Shoah, which makes Hillgruber’s demand that historians “identify” with the German Army so problematic and morally troubling. Might not the same point that was made against Hillgruber be applied not just to the Eastern Front in 1944-45, but for Germany’s war in its entirety? Everywhere, the Germans went, they spread death and destruction. Let’s just say counter-factually, if the German invasion of Poland in 1939 had failed, then the result of that failure would had saved millions of lives, because all of the millions of people in Poland, Jewish and Catholic would not had died as the result of the German occupation. Likewise, if Manstein’s plan to take out France in 1940 had failed, then the 76, 000 French Jews who died in the Shoah would not have been murdered. And in the same way, if Germany had been defeated in 1943 or 1944, then the lives of millions of people would been saved; by prolonging the war with his defensive tactics in the “cauldron battles” in 1943-44, Manstein ensured the Holocaust could go on that much longer. This page is totally perverse in the way that celebrates Manstein’s military “genius” with almost totally ignoring the results of that “genius”, namely millions and millions murdered. Indeed, given the way that Germany was totally defeated, the only result of Manstein's efforts in the long run were all those hapless innocents trampled down and murdered in the name of the Reich. Everything else he did failed in the long run; the Germans conquered Poland in 1939, and were gone by 1945; the Germans conquered France in 1940 and were gone by 1944, and so on and so on.

Now, one might say that it is unfair to judge Manstein by that standard, except of course Manstein applied that standard to himself. In his order to his troops of November 20, 1941, Manstein quite explicitly revealed himself to be an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist with his statement that the Jews run the Soviet Union, and then revealed himself to a very nasty anti-Semitic with his statement the war against the Soviet Union was a war to exterminate the Jews. So by Manstein’s own admission, he believed he was fighting to exterminate the Jews. Which is where this page really starts to reek of anti-Semitism. This page says that Manstein urged “lenient” treatment of non-Communists. In his order, Manstein very explicitly says that he believes that Jews run the Soviet Union, which is why they deserve to be exterminated, or as he puts it the “harsh punishment of Jewry, the spiritual bearer of the Bolshevik terror”. This is something straight out of the playbook of Ernst Nolte and war-time German propaganda. By saying that Manstein urged “lenient” treatment of non-Communists in his order urging that all Soviet Jews be exterminated, this page is essentially accepting Manstein’s argument that the Jews ruled the Soviet Union, and that the Germans were justified in seeking to kill all Jews as supposed revenge for Communist crimes. Evidently, all Jews were Communists which is why they did not deserve “lenient” treatment, unlike the other peoples of the Soviet Union. It did not seem to have occurred to Manstein that not all Jews were Communists. By presenting Manstein's "Severity Order" in this way, this page is making a profoundly disturbing, if not outright sick statement and not neutral at all.

Besides for that, this page takes out of context Manstein’s statement that soldiers were to avoid “savagery” and “arbitrary actions” as a sign of moderation. That is very wrong. The German Army always disapproved of so-called “wild shootings” where soldiers would run amok shooting people on their own initiative as bad for discipline. By contrast, “tame shootings” where soldiers would run amok shooting people while following orders were Ok. By saying “arbitrary actions” would not be permitted, Manstein was arguing against “wild shootings”, not genocide. Finally, there comes the statement taken from a book written by Manstein’s defense lawyer (itself not a very good source) that he only enforced the Commissar Order as a response to partisan attacks. First thing, there were hardly any partisan attacks on the German Army in the Crimea in 1941, and second just what those partisan attacks had to do with Soviet POWs is not made clear. Finally, virtually every single massacre committed by German forces in the Soviet Union, whatever by the SS, the Army or the police were justified by the claim that there were a response to partisan attacks, or sometimes just the threat of partisan attacks. In his order of November 20, 1941, Manstein makes that excuse, claiming that it was "Jewry" that was behind all of the partisan attacks (which had barely started at that time), which is why all Jews have to die. Poor Erich von Manstein, Germany's greatest military genuis was forced to have Jewish children and infants killed because it was the only way of stopping partisan attacks on his men, reflecting the hitherto known fact that Jewish infants were some of the most dangerous partisans out there. Please excuse my poor attempt at sarcasm, but the claim made at the time and since that the Germans were forced to kill Jewish children and infants as a way of preventing partisan attacks (presumably 20 years into the future) is as bizarre as it is sick. It is nothing more than an excuse for genocide. By taking that claim seriously, this page is coming very close to justifying genocide. All said, a page that really wants to glorify Manstein, even at the expense of the facts.--A.S. Brown (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The only thing troubling about the article is that a user with a massive bias against manstein has inserted so many biased opinions in it that in some parts it has become a pamphlet against Manstein and not a factual account..--Knispel (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

The user that amuses humself with trying to turn the article into a pamphlet should desist because I will be relentless in deleting the stuff. .--Knispel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

It is a scandal that after the article was turned into a pamphlet against Manstein including blatant false statements about the Stalingrad ccampaign and the content of lost victories, attempts are being made to prevent the article being made into a historical one again. Let us make it very clear. Manstein only once advised against the breakout of sixth army,and that under certain conditions. Anybody that has read lost victories knows that Manstein did not ever allege that that he could have won the war. And the other statements made by the pamphletter are not much better. Part at what is being tried to remove are placed here. On 24.11.1942 Manstein advised Hitler that "The breakout of 6th Army to the southwest is still possible and the safest way.Staying put means ,in view of the fuel and ammunition situation,running an extreme risk. I can in spite of this ,for the time being, not join tha postion of Armygroup B  for the breakout, as long as there is a prospect for sufficient supply,at least with antitankmunition,infanterymunition and fuel. This is decisive". On 28.11.1942 Manstein advised Hitler "..If therefore the forcing of a decision should not be possible and only a limited link to 6th Army woould result,then I consider it necessary,to use this to pull out 6th Army from the encirclement with the objective of achieving an operationally capable organisation of forces in the general line Jaschkal-Kotelnikowo-Don-Tschir-Usinko ". Wintergewitter, launched on 12 December, achieved some initial success and von Manstein got his three panzer divisions and supporting units of the 57th Panzer Corps (comprising the 23rd Panzer Grenadier Division, and the 6th and 17th Panzer Divisions) within 30 miles of Stalingrad by 20 December. However, the corps was halted at the town of Aksay, and strong Russian forces eventually pushed them back.

On 19 December 1942 von Manstein had ordered Paulus to execute the attack to linkup with the 57th Panzer Corps. Erich von Manstein did not however order the abandonment of Stalingrad, only to be prepared for doing so. At the same time he advised Hitler "...Because for reasons of weather and available forces the supply by air and with this the maintaining of Sixth Army ,is not possinle, as the 4 weeks of encirclement have proven, the 57 th Corps clearly cannot establish a land connection with sixth Army, I now consider the breahthrough of sixth Army to the southwest as the last possibility, to conserve at least the mass of the soldiers and the still mobile parts of the army". Some state that Manstein could have ordered the abandonment of Stalingrad but they disregard that this could not be done without Hitler knowing it. The 6th Army never executed the attack because it considered it did not have enough fuel and ammunition to do so.

In them he presented the thesis that if he had been allowed to operate by Hitler,maybe a draw could have been achieved on the eastern front "The first question which had to be answered was this,whether there could be still a thought of achving a bearable solution in the east at that time. Surely not anymore in the sense of thely fighting down of the soviet power. But was there not still the hope of achieving a remis?A solution which would have meant the prospect for the Reich of maintaining itself..... That militarily-with correct operational commanding-a remis could still be fought in the east at that time,,was at any rate at the Ob.Kdo der H.Gr.Don(which meanwhile had been renamed in Armygroup South)our conviction." . " On the one side stood the view of the dictator,who believed in the power of his will,by which he thought he could not only nail down his own armies where they stood ,but also stop the enemy.Of the dictator who also had to shy away from the danger of  risk,which entailed the possibility of the loss of prestige.Of the man whom with all the aptitude still lacked the basis for real military capabilities. On the other side stood the view of military commanders,who by education and training still held fast that warfare is an art,whose essential elements are a clear judgment of the situation and the boldness of the own decision.Of which the success  could only be found in mobile operations because only in these could the superiority of german command and troops be shown to its full advantage. Justice obliges to recognize that the conduct of the operations  the armygroup had in mind,would have demanded from Hitler the taking of big risks in other theatres of war and other sectors of the eastern front and accept strong political and economical disadvantages.,However,it would have been the only way, in 1943 to achieve an exhaustion of the soviet offensive power and open the way for a political draw in the east.". --Knispel (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.161.147 (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not really surprised that the mention of Aus einem Soldatenleben and the quote from it have been removed as it rather contradicts the statement the pamphletteer makes about Manstein not talking about political issues in Lost victories. Either the pamphletteer ignored the second book or he did know about it and intentionally ignored it. If I had the time I could easily refute the other false statements about Lost victories. When one reads them one has to pinch oneself to be certain that one is not dreaming because the statements are so out of sync wwith the content of the book. Not the first time that such statements are found on the internet. The quote from aus einem soldtanleben is put here again in case it is censored way again. "Certainly,one can say now that it was morally questionnable ,when at that time the weight of the successes made the majority of the people-and with it the soldiers-blind for the violations of ethical fundamentals on which the state should be based. This may have as its foundation the overestimating of the material achievements over the eternal commandments of human cohabitation which have been given to us by God,-a phenomenon caracteristic for our times and not limited to Germany. May we learn from the consequences. One should be clear about one thing as I stressed earlier. Anybody that wants to put the responsability on the armed forces of a state to act with weapons against a government that violates the law or is acting disastrously in another way,gives it fundamentally the control over the authority of the government. One should reflect whether this can be in the interest of the state,the people or the armed forces themselves." .--.--Knispel (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.161.147 (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think that quotes from von Manstein's own writings can replace well-considered analysis by historians. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Quotes from mansteins writings must certainly replace statements ABOUT what he alledgedly wrote. The reader does not need to agree with anything Manstein wrote but he needs to know what he said and not be confronted with biased statements about the content.Best would be that nothing at all is said in the article about the content.Let people read the book and they will see what Manstein wrote. Many people have many opinions about Mansteins generalship but they have no place in this article,let alone that only one negative opinion is presented as fact.It must be all or none. All would be too much so it should be none.Knispel (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC).


 * I disagree wholeheartedly. In a biography article we do not generally let the subject speak to the reader such that the reader has to do the work of figuring out the relevance and context. Rather, we look to respected historians who can interpret the statements for us, to tell us what was meant, what was perhaps not said, what was the result, and so on. Brief quotes can be included but they must not replace well-considered analysis of the quotes. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I will simply repeat that the statements about what is said in lost victories are inconsistent with the content of the book. And as there are as many opinions as there are historians,one will be hard put to give all their opinions. What will happen in practice is that the author will base what he writes on A book that he has read and the endresult will be that the text will reflect the personal opinion of ONE historian.The is the problem with the article on Manstein. The article in german on Manstein for example says the following on the content of Lost Victories:"Seine These, dass die Feldzüge grundsätzlich anders verlaufen wären, hätten die Generäle über mehr eigenen Spielraum verfügt, ist zumindest umstritten. So sprach er noch in den Abwehrkämpfen 1943/1944 von der Möglichkeit, durch geschicktes Manövrieren die Angriffskraft der sowjetischen Streitkräfte zu zerschlagen und einen Remisfrieden mit der Sowjetunion zu erreichen, was jedoch angesichts der allgemeinen Gesamtlage bezweifelt werden darf." So the article in german mentions that Manstein wanted in 1943-1844 by able manoeuvering to achieve a draw which which could lead to peace negotations. Clearly shows that the author of the article in german at least read Lost victories as he accurately describes what Manstein wrote. The comments added are however again an opinion and should not be in the article or at least be formulated as one particular opinion. Anyway,the author of the passage about Lost victories in the article in english has clearly not read the book. In general,wikipedia should not forcefeed opinions. It will also lead to chaos as one user has read historian X and the other has read historian Y with a different opinion. I will also repeat that the passage on the stalingrad campaign is inconsistent with the historical record and the historian I read(who has written the most detailed study ever on the german side)clearly totally disagrees with the book quoted in the article as it is now. Knispel (talk)   —Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

It is very ironic that when somebody enters the link in the Manstein article to the Verlore Siege page on wikipedia, he will find himself confronted wwith a different prsentation of the content of Verlorene Siege than the one given in the Manstein article. Obviously,the author of the Verloren Siege page read the book. The article needs some changes but at least it does not contradict the book. The existence of the page makes it completely superfluous that a description of the content of the book is given on the Manstein page. Now we have one user with an avowed bias against Manstein and who has clearly not read the book making ludicrous claims about its content and another user who has read the book saying something completely different on the wikipedia page about the book. And the reader is left to wonder. Actually,when one googles on verlorene siege and reads some of the reviews the bias of the manstein article becames even more obvious. Knispel (talk)
 * I have a theory about people that I would like to share here. Whatever people lack the most, it is that quality that they claim to possess the most. So the most laziest people who are the ones who always tell you how hard-working they are, and it is the dumbest people who tell you how smart they are. Knisepel claims quite vehemently that he is the upholder of pure "cold facts", and is doing anything in his power to keep "biased opinions" out of this page. I'll let the reader draw their own conclusions. Here is one sentence that Kisepel keeps deleting as a "biased opinion": "Manstein made the entirely false claim that he did not enforce the "Commissar Order", and made no mention of his own considerable role in the Holocaust, such as sending 2,000 of his soldiers to help the SS massacre 11,000 Jews in Simferopol in November 1941." Just how is that a "biased opinion"? It is a fact that Manstein perjured himself in court when he said he didn't enforce the Commissar Order, and it is a matter of fact that Manstein did send 2, 000 of his soldiers to help massacre 11, 000 Jews at Simferopol. These facts that drawn by a very reliable source, The Myth of the Eastern Front, and if that is unflattening to Manstein, then it is only his own fault for doing those facts. The purpose of history is get at the truth, not white-wash people. That is a fact, not an opinion, and one wishes that Knisepel understand the difference between the two before deleting anything and everything that makes Manstein look bad as a "biased opinion". As Binksternet correctly notes, with a historical page, memoirs should not be used as a main source, and a good history page should be based upon what the experts are saying, preferrably with the most recent scholorship. The Myth of the Eastern Front is a 2008 book by Ronald Smelser and Edward Davies, both of whom teach at the University of Utah. First thing, that is recent scholorship by two very respected historians. Manstein's memoirs, which Knisepel insists upon using "totally unreliable" to quote Volker Berghahn ("Preface" by Volker Berghahn from War of Extermination edited by Klaus Naumann & Hannes Heer, New York: Berghahn Books, 2004 page xiv). Here is a link to that book:


 * Likewise, the book A World In Arms by Gerhard Weinberg says quite clearly that Manstein told Hitler that not to order the 6th Army to break out of Stalingrad. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. A World In Arms was published back in 1994. If Weinberg is as wrong about this as Knisepel claims, then reviewers should have easily pointed that out. I read reviews of A World In Arms, and so far, I have not found a single one attacking Weinberg over his statements about Stalingrad, which is rather strange if Weinberg is as wrong about this as Knisepel claims. Even more importantly, when A World in Arms was re-published in 2005, nothing was changed about Stalingrad. I can not believe that a leading historian could be as wrong about this as Knisepel maintains, and yet have no-one criticized him for that. The book was published all the way back in 1994, so surely someone should have noticed that error by now if that is indeed the case.


 * For my part, I will not claim to be some pseudo-objectivity that does not exist in real life. To the charge that I don't like Manstein, I will pledge guilty. I dislike anti-Semitics, and I dislike murderers, and so Manstein being an anti-Semitic murderer is doubly dammed in my books. If I have to chose between Manstein's camp or the camp of humanitiy, I'll take the latter any day. Knisepel by contrast, seems to feel the opposite about Manstein. Having declared my biases, I'll also say that I do work at keeping my views out of the articles I work on. A good work of keeping one's biases out of an article is to recognize them, rather pretending to some sort of pseduo-objectivity that no historian has in real life. As proof, try reading the article about Geogres Bonnet, where I did 99% of the work, and I'll think I did my best to try to be fair about Bonnet, even through I don't like him very much. The problem with this article is the biases are all the other way. This article told the reader that Manstein was charged with enforcing the Commissar Order, and then cites his statements in court denying that. The article didn't tell the reader that Manstein had perjured himself, leaving one with the impression that Manstein never enforced the Commissar Order. Merely adding in a properly referenced statement from a reliable source telling the reader about Manstein's perjury is not a "biased opinion", and simply corrects the false impression that Manstein did not enforce the Commissar Order. Or take the paragraph, which reads as follows: "'Never having been a member of the Nazi Party, he had no trouble in West Germany, unlike some of the Reich's more notorious Hitler supporters. Because of his influence, for the first few years of the Bundeswehr,  he was seen as the unofficial chief of staff. Even later, his birthday parties were regularly attended by official delegations of Bundeswehr  and NATO top leaders, such as General Hans Speidel who was the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied ground forces in Central Europe from 1957 to 1963. This was not the case with pro-Nazi Field Marshals such as Milch, Schörner, von Küchler,  and others, who were disregarded and forgotten after the war'." The clear implication is that because Manstein was welcomed by Adenauer as an advisor, he could not have been a Nazi. This being the same Adenauer, who had Hans Globke as one of his closest advisors, and had Theodor Oberländer in his cabinet. That paragraph is highly misleading at best. If Knispel would stop deleting everything about Manstein that is unflattening, I'll work on this article, and add in information that this article at present ignores, some of it flattening and some of it not.


 * Finally, Knisepel, you did not disagree with any of my reasons for posting the neutrality tag, instead responsing with an ad hominem attack. I'll take it you as conceding those points. It is very troubling to have the page present Manstein's Severity Order as a act of restraint and moderation(!). The sentence you wrote says Manstein asked for "lenient" treatment of the non-Communist population, which is followed up by an quote, in which Manstein equated Jews with Communism. The implication here is clearly that the Jews were all Communists, which is why they did not deserve "lenient" treatement. Finally, your vaguely threatening statement here telling me not to contribute to this page because you will be "relentless" in deleting my work is supremely unproductive. You are short-circuiting the entire process here by saying that you not open to negotiation, and it is just going to be your way or the highway. This is what is normally called disruptive editing. Do not threaten other users, and if have some concerns about the edits of others, try voicing them in a reasonable manner. --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * At least A.S. Brown admits again he hates Manstein which goes to motive. Most of the time he does not even speak about military history as such. It as all about the war crimes subject. He is not really interested in military history.Contrary to what he states Manstein did not enforce the commissar order which is sufficiently proven by the fact he was not convicted for any killings of commissars while he commanded 56th Panzercorps. It is not very likely that none were captured then. Those killed in the Crimea were few in number and probably killed for partisan activity. Manstein was acquitted of ordering the killing of jews. Actually,not much was left of the charges against him at the end of the trial.
 * A.S.Brown shows clear weakness on the Stalingrad campaign as he does not quote one of the works specifically written on the subject. That Manstein did advise Hitler that Stalingrad should be giving up from 28.11.1942 was clearly shown by the situation reports I quoted literally. Not some strange theory of mine . Can be found in solid historical works on the Stalingrad campaign.I used Kehrigs study which is the most detailed one ever written on the german side. Mansteins situation reports are in there. There can be no discussion on that matter. TThe objective facts are what they are.
 * Not surprisingly,he does not attempt to defend his strange statements about what Manstein wrote in Lost victories as these even contradict the wikepedia page on the subject. He has not read the book,I have.
 * A.S.Brown wants to turn this article into an anti-Manstein pamphlet which is even in flagrant contradiction with other wikipedia articles(for example the german speaking one on Manstein). He may hate Manstein but most people genuinely interested in military history,particularly military professionals hold Manstein in very high regard. The wikipedia article as it is sticks out as a sore thumb.
 * And,yes I will plead guilty to having a very detailed knowledge of military history. I will not tolerate manifest factual nonsense to be written on the subject in any wikipedia article,neither will I tolerate bias. Wikipedia articles must be completely neutral. A.S.Brown does not even hide that he wants the Manstein article to be negatively biased. He condemns himself by this.--Knispel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Knispel, I do not "hate" Manstein. I don't like him, but hatred is a drug one is better living without, but you would not understand what I'm talking about. Manstein murdered children. A man who murders children cannot be a hero in my books. Going beyond Manstein's own massive involvement in the Holocaust, Knispel, you should go visit Auschwitz (your German I presume, so Auschwitz cannot be very far from you), and reflect that every day that Manstein allowed Germany to hold out was more day that the death mills of Auschwitz were allowed to operate. That is the only enduring testament to Manstein's military ability that stands today. Just think, if Germany was defeated in 1943, how many millions would not had ended up in Auschwitz. For starters, the deportations of Hungarian Jews only started in March 1944, so if Germany had been defeated in 1943 or 1942 or 1941 or 1940, then the Jews of Hungary would have survived. Manstein could not stop Germany from being defeated, but he did play a major role in ensuring the war went on to 1945 with all that it entailed for the people of Europe. Think about that the next time you want to go ranting about Manstein's military genius. I will not deny that Manstein was an able commander, but I also remember the trail of death and destruction that Manstein left in his wake. Just remember, that because Manstein took the Crimea, that led to the Jewish community of the Crimea would being almost totally murdered. Some of us remember and care about these things.

As for other arguements, you are not making any sense here. You say that Manstein didn't enfore the Commissar Order, and then in the same breath claim that he enforced the Commissar Order in response to partisan attacks. That makes no sense. Moreover, the claim that German commanders only orderd executions in response to partisan attacks is a just an excuse for war crimes, and is just the classic device of the murderer blaming the victims for his crimes. Knispel, if you are really the expert in military history that you claim to be then you would know that the claim of massacres being a reponse to partisan attacks was just a pretext for genocide. To be frank, it is disgusting that a German today is still repeating this very stale and totally unbelievable excuse for genocide. And just how is shooting Russian POWs be considered a response to partisan attacks? The POWs shot as commissars (please remember it was up to the German soldier to decide if a POW was a commissar or not) were all in POW camps, so they could not had anything to do with the partisans. And if you really an expert in military history then you know that no historian today believes the claims of Manstein or any other commander that they did not enforce the Commissar Order. A curious thing that every single German commander claims to have disregarded the Commissar Order, yet during the war they all sent detailed reports back to Berlin showing the number of "commissars" they had shot every week. Moreover, the same officers complained to Berlin during the war that the Commissar Order was increasing Russian resistance as it made Russians less likely to surrender. How can a policy that was not being enforced have that effect? Please do explain.

Moreover, you write like Manstein was acquitted at his trial, when in fact he was found guilty. He was never acquitted of murdering Jews because he was not tried for that. As I have written elsewhere, in the late 1940s Soviet Union, there was a really nasty anti-Semitic campaign going on with Soviet Jews being executed as "Zionists" and "rootless cosmopolitans". In this context, the Soviet Union had no interest in prosecuting anyone for the murder of Jews (not the least because they were doing the same thing, through on a much lesser scale), and Manstein’s indictment based as it was upon Soviet sources ignored the murder of Jews, and only accused him of the murder of Russians and Ukrainians (which he was convicted of).

I will ignore your insults, and just add that the situation reports which you reproduce so proudly here are based upon a book by Kehring, which Weinberg cites to prove the opposite of your claims. A "strange claim" indeed! And finally, you cannot use another Wikipedia article to support the claims of another. That is against the rules. You gave the game away here with the your statement "military professionals hold Manstein in very high regard" as proof that nothing negative can posted about Manstein here. That was true once, and is still to a lesser extent true today, but to use that as evidence for somehow washing the blood off Manstein's hands shows that what you want is a page glorying Manstein. --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Knispel's edits
Let's work on text suggestions here on the talk page rather than carry out an edit war in article space. Firstly, Knispel's English skills are not high enough to write an English-language encyclopedia, but Knispel can communicate adequately here on the talk page. Secondly, I have a specific problem with the content of Knispel's editing because of his removal of unflattering cited analysis (replacing it with direct quotes of von Manstein) and his work here to eliminate the fact that von Manstein distorted the historical record after the war. Knispel wants the article to say in Wikipedia's voice that von Manstein was correct in all of his decisions. This cannot be the tone of the article since we know that many historians have criticized von Manstein's generalship. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it very ironic that I get threatened because of replacing the opinions which transformed the article into a anti-manstein pamphlet. The arrogant comments about my writing ability make me smile. Af if historical correctness is of secondary imprtance.One should also have some understating about the shock produced by seeing an article that is supposed to be objective turning out to misrepresent history in a massive way. Actually the author did not even hide his massive bias against Manstein. Goes for motive. What is the worst thing in the actual version is that very ludicrous statements are made about what Manstein wrote in his book. One statement is the one about Manstein supposedly saying he could have won the war on the eastern front. Having read the book a few times I know perfectly well that he said no such thing(he spoke about a draw) and I proved it by quotes. After having read the article I now know why one regurlarly is confronted on internetforums by statements to the effect that Manstein said he could have won the war. They got it from wikipedia. It bears a heavy responsability there.Each time one is forced to explain again that Manstein wrote that he could have tried to achieve a draw. One advantage is that I had the quotes on my blog. The statement concerning what he said about the red army is not much better. Mansstein certainly did not say that the german army was 'vastly' superior. His explanations on the subject are much more complex than that. The alleged disparaging statements about other german commanders are pure fiction. What Manstein really said is easily verifiable as the book is not rare. In general Mansteins writings are much more complex and balanced than the way they are represented in the article with the obvious intention of giving a wrong image of the content of the book and putting people off reading it. And the article is also flawed because it does not mention Mansteins second book. It is not because it was not translated in english that it does not exist. Not knowing german is no excuse for ignorance.It was important to mention the book as it deals with the political issues that Manstein is accused of as not adressing in the actual version of the article. He does actually adress these political issues in great detail in his second book. The statements about the stalingrad campaign reflect the opinions of the authors of one particular book and shook not be taken as fact in wikipedia article.This opinion was only put there as fact because of the author's bias against Manstein which he does not deny. That Manstein for example spoke out against the breakout of the sixth army is incorrect as is proven by his situation reports which are in the german military archives and were reproduced in the annexes of Manfred Kehrigs very detailed book published in 1974. These situation reports are fact and the reader should be able to judge their content himself. At the end of the day,the article can only contain facts and not opinions either for or aginst Manstein. Those that have responsability for content simply need to read Mansteins book to check what he actually said and then compare it with the allegations in the actual version of the article. Same thing for Mansteins situation reports which are out there. There again,not knowing german is no excuse. The actual version of the article will be found wanting. It is not the only article that is flawed because it reflects the opinon of the author. I rest my case. Knispel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC).

One ironic feature of the article is the mention of what Manstein supposedly said about Kursk in his book. In his book he simply repeats his criticism of the delaying of the attack which he made during the war. This criticism is also mentioned in the Kursk article on wikipedia and I quote "High officers like Manstein and Zeitzler pushed for a fast attack to catch the Red Army unprepared and low on morale after the third battle of Kharkov. The overlap with the Allied invasion of Sicily made Hitler's date for the attack the "most adverse possible". " Not that it being said on wikipedia makes it more credible but articles should not contradict each other. Manstein never critised the idea of the attack,only the timing. And there is the socalled forgery concerning the stalingrad campaign. Actually that is about the INTERPRETATION of Mansteins order of 19 december 1942 about which there was a discussion in the sixties. An author can choose to be uncritical of Paulus' attempts at justifying himself but it is not fact,it is an opinion. The reader should just look at the order and make up his own mind instead of being told that Paulus was absolutely correct in how it was meant. --Knispel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC). As no attempt has been made to defend the inaccurate claims about the content of 'lost victories', these are now removed and replaced by a general description copied/pasted from the wikipedia article on 'lost victories'. That also takes care of the inconsistency between the Manstein article and the one on 'lost victories'. Anybody can read the article on 'lost victories' to know what Manstein wrote. --Knispel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC). The stalingrad section of the article is rephrased to make it clear what Manstein really advised and the biased comments are removed.--Knispel (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First thing, Knispel please do not attack other users, especially if there are trying to help you. Binksternet is trying to be helpful here, and worked out a solution here, through you may not see that way. I don't mean to be rude here, but much of the content you have added is simply incomprehensible. An article is supposed to tell you a particular historical subject, which includes the good and the bad. Most historians would say that Richard Nixon had some achievements to his credit, but at the same time, nobody tries to hide the fact that Nixon resigned in disgrace in 1974, and only a pardon from President Ford saved him from being indicted for obstruction of justice. By using your standards that you are applying to the Manstein article to the Nixon article, we would only be talking about the positive and ignoring the negative. Like it or not, Watergate was a huge part of Nixon's presidency, and I would never dream of editing the Nixon article to exclude any mention of Watergate. That approach is the same one that you are applying to the Manstein article. This will not do. A good article includes both the good and the bad, the positive and the negative, and does not create a sanitized version of a subject's life.

A Wikipedia article is supposed to be based on what reliable, secondary sources say. Your blog may say something different, but are you seriously suggesting that you because you posted something on your blog, that we change the article to make conform to what your blog says? You should read the rules about Wikipedia sources, which says that blogs may never be used as a source. If you take the time to read the book by Smseler and Davies, you will see that the chapter on generals' memoirs, which uses the examples of the memoirs by Manstein and Guderian uses in its endnotes to support its points the very memoirs by Manstein that Smseler and Davies are supposed to be distorting. If Smseler and Davies are really being as egregious as you claim, that it will very easy for any historian to spot that. That book was published in 2008, and so forth, I have yet to read any review saying that. Anyhow, your approach to this subject smacks of original research. Knisepel's approach can be summarized thus: This page can only said what I wanted it to say because only I have read Manstein's memoirs, and no-one else is allowed to add material based upon reliable, secondary sources which may be unflattening to Manstein. Now, I will be fair. If you think a review of Smseler's and Davies's book by a historian writing in well respected historical journal like the American Historical Review, English Historical Review, Journal of Modern History, International History Review, etc, etc, (sorry, Amazon.com does not cut it) saying that Smseler and Davies went and distorted Manstein's memoirs in their book, then I will say cut that material out. The same goes for Weinberg's point about Stalingrad. Until, that material which is properly cited to book by respected historians stays. --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

New Melvin book
Major General Mungo Melvin published an exhaustive book dedicated to a detailed analysis of Erich von Manstein's generalship. Melvin determines, among other things, that Manstein directed the German Army to wipe out Jewry. This work puts to rest the myth that the German Army fought a clean war and that only Nazis and the SS were involved in The Holocaust. I think the Melvin book must be cited in this article. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Manstein: Hitler's Greatest General, Mungo Melvin
 * "Commanding Hitler’s Soldiers"; Review of Melvin's book in The New York Times
 * Adrian Gilbert reviews the Melvin book for War Books Review
 * Review of Melvin's book in MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History by David T. Zabecki, a retired army major general and an honorary senior research fellow at Britain's University of Birmingham


 * If all books on Manstein have to be quoted the article will become extremely long. Melvin may allege what he wants,Manstein had his day in court and was acquitted of the charges of directing the killing of jews. He cannot be tried again,let alone by  writers. When I state that he was innocent,i am on solid legal ground.Knispel (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC).


 * With all due respect, Knispel, you are mistaken. This article at present is lacking in sources, so bringing in a recent biography that reflects current scholarship can only be regarded as a plus. Melvin's book is a much better source than Manstein's self-justifying memoirs. Kudos for Binksternet bringing up Melvin's book! That applies to all biographical articles, not just Manstein. The judgements of historians are almost always to be preferred over memoirs. No, Manstein was not tried for his (huge) role in the Shoah. The indictment of Manstein was based upon Soviet sources, and the Soviet Union never recognized the Shoah as a distinct crime. The slogan in the Soviet Union was "Do not divide the dead!", which meant in practice that the Shoah was never seen as anything distinct, but was only treated as part and parcel of broader crimes against the peoples of the Soviet Union. This was especially the case in the late 1940s, when the Soviet government got into an especially nasty anti-Semitic phrase, which meant that the memory of the Holocaust in the Soviet Union was pretty much obliterated. Manstein was charged with the ill-treatement of Russians and Ukrainians, not Jews.


 * Beyond that, this is a history article! The bar for historians about determining guilt is a lot lower than it is for lawyers. Adolf Hitler for example was only found guilty in a court of law twice-once in 1921 for inciting a riot, and again in 1924 for trying to overthrow the Bavarian government in 1923. Hitler was never tried for the Shoah, but all historians agree that Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust. By Knisepl's standards, all the Hitler article could say is that he was found guilty of inciting a riot and for staging a putsch attempt, and nothing else. This is absurd! If all of the available evidence indicates, and if the majority of historians say that somebody is responsible for a particular crime, that I see no reason why Wikipedia can not say that, even if that person was never found guilty in a court of law. Now, if somebody were still alive, that a different set of rules apply, but since Manstein left this earth all the way back in 1973, the BLP rules do not apply.


 * Finally, I would like to direct one's attention for an authoritative book on this subject, namely the enthusiastic and whole-hearted co-operation of Hitler's generals (including Manstein) in his war of extermination against the Soviet Union. In the aptly titled War of Extermination The German Military In World War II, the following is said about Manstein: "Manstein's book, like many others was totally unreliable, and if we had in 1945 known about him and many of his comrades what we know today, there might have well been more executions for war crimes" ("Preface" by Volker Berghahn from War of Extermination edited by Klaus Naumann & Hannes Heer, New York: Berghahn Books, 2004 page xiv.) First thing, I don't understand why Manstein's memoirs are being used as a source here, given that we have the judgement of a very respected historian like Berghahn that they are "totally unreliable". Second, here is a leading German historian telling us that had they known in the 1940s that we know today about Manstein's massive involvement in the Shoah, that he would have hanged for crimes against humanitiy. Just because a criminal gets away with his crimes does not mean that he was not a criminal. Manstein was able to create for himself a mythological reputation in the 1950s, which historians for some reason chose to believe. No serious historian believes in that mythological reputation today, just as nobody believes Manstein's self-serving claim that he fought a "clean war", and never got his hands dirty. There is a historical consensus that Manstein got his hands very bloody. I See the remark by Berghahn "By the time Christian Streit published his book Keine Kamaden about the mass murder of Red Army prisoners of war at the hands of the Wehrmacht, professional historians firmly accepted what Manstein and his comrades had denied and covered up, i.e., that the Wehrmacht had been deeply involved in the criminal and genocidal policies of the Nazi regime". I think it is time that this article start to reflect real history, and not this self-serving, idealized version of himself that Manstein created, and some want to keep alive today. --A.S. Brown (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The Melvin book seriously questions the truth of von Manstein's statements about his involvement with "the planned liquidation of Jews and partisans in the Crimea". Melvin cites historian Oliver von Wrochem of Helmut-Schmidt-Universität who intensively researched the order of 20 November 1941 and its ramifications. Von Wrochem says that von Manstein's Eleventh Army Headquarters was very much involved in the planned killing of Jews, and that von Manstein likely lied about his ignorance of such involvement. (Melvin, p. 244) – Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Melvin also says von Manstein "fed ...the myth of a clean Wehrmacht and offered no atonement for his misdeeds." (p. 450) Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A.S. Brown again explains his bias and his lack of interest in military history. Mansteins reputation is based on his deeds and not his book. His book confirms that he was brilLiant. A.S. Brown wants the wikipedia article to be based on his biased opinion. Fortunately,individuals are not judged by historians. Judges use other standards. Manstein came off very well in court. Presenting him as an ardent nationalsocialist and antisemite is nonsense. Anyway, the article has to be neutral. It is not now. It represents a particular opinion. I will be relentless in removing everything that violates the neutrality of the article.--Knispel (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First thing, Knispel, please not do engage in personal and ad hominem attacks here. For your information, I happened to hold a BA and MA in modern European and military history, which perhaps reflects my "lack of interest" in the subject. No, I am out to smear Manstein as you suggest. What I would like is the article to reflect what current scholarship says about Manstein, not his own self-promoting efforts at myth-making after the war. If I were really serious about smearing Manstein, I would bring some of the more choice remarks made about Manstein by his arch-enemy, General Franz Halder. After the war, the U.S. Army interviewed every captured German general it held. My local library happens to hold copies of those interviews, which take up an impressive 25 volumes. Halder is quite scathing about Manstein (as Manstein was about Halder). If I really wanted to smear Manstein as you claiming, I would bring in Halder's remarks. But I won't because Halder trash-talking Manstein is as worthless as Manstein trash-talking Halder. Halder and Manstein hated each other, and each is totally worthless on the subject of each other. Anyhow, Halder's interviews are every bit as self-justifing as Manstein's memoirs are. Halder claims that it him, not Manstein who came up with the plan for taking out France in 1940. Looking at the way that Halder and Manstein fought with each other after the war over who deserved the most credit for the victories while blaming each other for every defeat more than ever confirms John F. Kennedy's remark that victory has a thousand fathers while defeat is an orphan. It is precisely for that reason that I am against using Halder as a source. I never said anything about Manstein not being "brilliant", and it is intersting that you are attacking me on that point. I said that Manstein is over-rated in that he did make serious mistakes, but I have never questioned the basic claim about his military competence. I just think it all in very bad cause.

It is interesting that Knispel seems to think that using Manstein's memoirs as proving the greatness of Manstein. One cannot use somebody memoirs to prove that they were "brilliant". We supposed to be reflecting what historians have to say about a subject, not what the subject has to say about himself. Your point about judges as a way of valditing that Manstein was no war criminal are to put it frankly, ridiculous. Judges are just as fallible and prone to mistakes as anyone else. Let me use an example here. At the Nuremberg trials of 1945-46, one the accused was Joachim von Ribbentrop, who had to face the charge of conspiracy to commit aggression against Poland. In March 1946, it came out for the first time, the existence of the Secret Protocols of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939 for partitioning Poland. This presented something of a problem for the International Military Tribunal, which included Soviet judges. A secret treaty for dividing up Poland surely constitues a conspiracy to commit aggression against Poland, and if Ribbentrop's actions were part of conspiracy to commit aggression, then surely Stalin was also part of the same conspiracy, and thereforth should be sitting in the dock besides Ribbentrop. The International Military Tribunal got around this problem by declaring the Secret Protocols to be a forgery. No historian today believes the Secret Protcols to be a forgery, especially after 1989 when the Soviet government finally admitted that the secret protocols were geninue. So, if we were to adopt Kisepel's rules, we have to ignore what every historian today says about the secret protocols of the non-aggression pact, and just declare them a forgery. This is an absurdly legalistic approach to the subject of Manstein defies every rule of historical common sense, and this argument is only being made here to white-wash Manstein of all the blood on his hands.

As for the claim that it is "nonsense" that Manstein was a National Socialist and an anti-Semitic, would Knisepl please explain Manstein's order of November 20th, 1941, which reads:"This struggle is not being carried on against the Soviet Armed Forces alone in the established form laid down by European rules of warfare. Behind the front too, the fighting continues. Partisan snipers dressed as civilians attack single soldiers and small units and try to disrupt our supplies by sabotage with mines and infernal machines. Bolshevists left behind keep the population freed from Bolshevism in a state of unrest by means of terror and attempt thereby to sabotage the political and economic pacification of the country. Harvests and factories are destroyed and the city population in particular is thereby ruthlessly delivered to starvation. Jewry is the middleman between the enemy in the rear and the remains of the Red Army and the Red leadership still fighting. More strongly than in Europe they hold all key positions of political leadership and administration, of trade and crafts and constitutes a cell for all unrest and possible uprisings. The Jewish Bolshevik system must be wiped out once and for all and should never again be allowed to invade our European living space. The German soldier has therefore not only the task of crushing the military potential of this system. He comes also as the bearer of a racial concept and as the avenger of all the cruelties which have been perpetrated on him and on the German people.... The soldier must appreciate the necessity for the harsh punishment of Jewry, the spiritual bearer of the Bolshevik terror. This is also necessary in order to nip in the bud all uprisings which are mostly plotted by Jews." That is nothing less than an endorsement of Hitler's concept of the war against the Soviet Union as a "war of extermination" (his phrase, not mine) of "Judeo-Bolshevism". If Mansein was not a Nazi and not an anti-Semitic, would Knispel please kindly explain just what Manstein meant by this order? And one might also note that in March 1941, Hitler assembled every senior military leader (which included Manstein) to tell them in no uncertain terms that he wanted the war against the Soviet Union to be a "war of extermination". Hitler began his remarks by saying that in August 1939 that he wanted the war against Poland to be a "war of extermination", but there was a misunderstanding as some of his generals thought that was a "metaphor", and was not to taken literally. This time, Hitler made himself clear that he said "war of extermination" that was meant literally, and that was how he wanted to fight the war against the Soviet Union (which Hitler claimed was ruled by the Jews), and that Germany was to disregard all of the rules of war in fighting this "war of extermination". Manstein who was later to boost about his his tendency to argue with Hitler, said not a word of protest about Hitler's "war of extermination" speech, nor he did protest against Hitler's order that the rules of war being disregarded. Indeed, everybody at that meeting with the single exception of Admiral Canaris, who did protested, agreed with Hitler's remarks about the "war of extermination". Perhaps, a sign of how much Manstein was opposed to National Socialism and anti-Semitism.--A.S. Brown (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)